Case: EEOC v. Key Energy Services, Inc.

2:03-cv-00331 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Filed Date: Sept. 4, 2003

Closed Date: June 21, 2004

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In September 2003, the EEOC district office of San Antonio, Texas brought this suit against Key Energy Services, Inc., the parent company of Brooks Well Servicing, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in that a female employee was sexually harassed by a male manager and male coworkers when they made obscene comments, sexual innuendos, and requested to have sex with her. The charging …

In September 2003, the EEOC district office of San Antonio, Texas brought this suit against Key Energy Services, Inc., the parent company of Brooks Well Servicing, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in that a female employee was sexually harassed by a male manager and male coworkers when they made obscene comments, sexual innuendos, and requested to have sex with her. The charging party then intervened as a plaintiff. After some initial discovery, the EEOC moved for partial summary judgment in May 2004. The parties settled in less than a month and in June 2004 a consent decree was issued.

The parties agreed that the injunctive terms of the agreement would extend for three years and that there shall be 10 days notice to defendant if there is a belief that it is violating the agreement and a subsequent face-to-face conference to resolve any issues. The defendant was enjoined from discriminating on the basis of sex, was not to retaliate against any employee who complains of such discrimination, and had to distribute a copy of its nondiscrimination policy to all current employees. The female employee received $30,001.40 and her attorney received $27,498.60. All employees, supervisors and managers were to receive no less than four hours of training on the employment provisions of Title VII. This training was to be repeated every year within 30 days of the anniversary of the decree. Further, an EEOC prepared notice was to be conspicuously displayed in the defendant's Texas facility for the duration of the agreement.

Summary Authors

Jason Chester (6/1/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:03-cv-00331

Docket (PACER)

Equal Employment v. Key Energy Services

June 21, 2004

June 21, 2004

Docket

2:03-cv-00331

Office of General Counsel Annual Report (Fiscal Year 2002)

EEOC v. Four Corners, Inc. d/b/a/ Key Energy Services, Inc.

No Court

June 16, 2003

June 16, 2003

Press Release
1

2:03-cv-00331

Complaint

Equal Employment v. Key Energy Services

Sept. 4, 2003

Sept. 4, 2003

Complaint
5

2:03-cv-00331

Plaintiff Intervener Tina Roberson's Original Complaint

Equal Employment v. Key Energy Services

Sept. 24, 2003

Sept. 24, 2003

Complaint
23

2:03-cv-00331

Plaintiff's First Amended Original Complaint

Equal Employment v. Key Energy Services

Feb. 29, 2004

Feb. 29, 2004

Complaint
26

2:03-cv-00331

Plantiff's First Amended Complaint

Equal Employment v. Key Energy Services

March 23, 2004

March 23, 2004

Complaint
29

2:03-cv-00331

Key Energy Services, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiff-Intervenor's First Amended Original Complaint

Equal Employment v. Key Energy Services

May 19, 2004

May 19, 2004

Pleading / Motion / Brief
35

2:03-cv-00331

Final Judgment Order Entering Consent Decree

Equal Employment v. Key Energy Services

June 14, 2004

June 14, 2004

Order/Opinion
34

2:03-cv-00331

Consent Decree

Equal Employment v. Key Energy Services

June 14, 2004

June 14, 2004

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11591001/equal-employment-v-key-energy-services/

Last updated July 29, 2022, 3:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed; (dterrell) (Entered: 09/05/2003)

Sept. 4, 2003

Sept. 4, 2003

Clearinghouse
2

Order setting Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference on 1:15 10/21/03 before Judge Janis Graham Jack and Order to Disclose Interested Persons, filed. (dterrell) (Entered: 09/05/2003)

Sept. 4, 2003

Sept. 4, 2003

PACER

SUMMONS issued for Key Energy Services (dterrell)

Sept. 4, 2003

Sept. 4, 2003

PACER
3

DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Equal Employment, filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 09/12/2003)

Sept. 12, 2003

Sept. 12, 2003

PACER
4

MOTION to Intervene as a Plaintiff Under FRCP 24 by Tina Roberson by Tina Roberson, Motion Docket Date 10/14/03 [4-1] motion, filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

Sept. 24, 2003

Sept. 24, 2003

PACER
5

Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Tina Roberson against defendant Key Energy Services, filed (lcayce) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

Sept. 24, 2003

Sept. 24, 2003

Clearinghouse
6

RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Key Energy Services 9/18/03 filed. Answer due on 10/8/03 for Key Energy Services (lcayce) (Entered: 09/30/2003)

Sept. 29, 2003

Sept. 29, 2003

PACER
7

ORIGINAL ANSWER to Complaint by Key Energy Services (Added attorney Teresa L De Ford), filed.; jury demand (lcayce) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

PACER
8

JOINT DISCOVERY/Case Management Plan by Key Energy Services, filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

PACER
9

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Key Energy Services, filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

PACER
10

Initial Pretrial Conference held before Judge Janis Graham Jack Ct Reporter: Lori Cayce Tape Number: 1:16 - 1:54. Case called; appearance of counsel. Ms. Gilson stated that intervention is for a claim of retaliation not considered by EEOC. Ms. Gutierrez stated EEOC issued finding as to sexual harrassment and not as to retaliation. Ms. Gilson has contracted with deft to seek attorney fees. The Intervention was unopposed by EEOC and Ms. De Ford. Court inquires as to the termination of Ms. Roberson. Ms. DeFord states she was fired because she had been rude to a customer on the phone and her past performance. Ms. DeFord states Ms. Roberson had been reprimanded in two incidents. One of the incidents involved divulging confidential information; the second involved a workers compensation claim. Ms DeFord states KeyEnergy is an oil company that provides trucking business. Ms Gutierrez advised the court that a Q. Buentello is the person doing the sexual harrassment. Ms. DeFord states that Mr. Buentello is longer with the company. Ms DeFord states there may be a fact question as to the supervisor. Ms. DeFord states that the reprimands were given by Mr.Glen Pavalik and acknowledged by another supervisor Noe Garza. Ms Roberson states Mr. Buentello was her immediate supervisor and Mr. Pavalik,Bfuentello's Supervisor. Ms. Roberson advised the court on the incidents she was reprimanded. Ms. DeFord advised the court that the two names on the reprimands are Glen Pavalik and Noe Garza. Ms. Roberson stated she was not aware of the reprimand on the workman's compensation. Ms. Roberson states she worked eight years and did not use vulgar language. Ms . DeFord states she does not know who the customer was that complained about Ms. Roberson. Attorneys stated that they have done Rule 26 disclosures. Court orders attorneys to add the name of the customer, date and circumstances to Rule 26 Disclosures. Ms. Gutierrez advised the court that they offered to mediate to the company, there has been mediation and it was not successful. Ms. Gutierrez initial demand was $167,000.00 Dollars, Ms. Gutierrez states offer was for $5,000.00. The job was not offered. Ms. DeFord states the job was not requested back. Ms. DeFord states a positive reprimand was discussed and discussed. Ms. DeFord states mediation was premature, Ms DeFord did not have enough information. Ms. DeFord states investigation has not shown any evidence of sexual harrassment.. Ms. Roberson states she notified Noe Garza, Glen Pavalik and Mr. Carroll of sexual harrassment in the last two years. Ms. Gutierrez states that Mr. Carroll and Mr. Pavalik assured Ms. Roberson the matter of sexual harrassment had been referred to the corporate Midland office and it was being taken care of and did not want her to go over them because it would look bad on the Alice Yard. Ms. DeFord states there was no communication to corporate office. Ms. Gutierrez states they have a witness statement that Robert Carroll conceded to Peggy Lee, employee in the Victoria office that it had been taken to the Midland office but that he could not do anything about it, after Ms. Roberson had been terminated. Ms. Lee is still working in the Victoria office. Ms. DeFord states that this is new information. No objections to the scheduling order. Ms. Gilson states she has not talked to Mr. Garza or Pavalik because they are management. Ms. Gilson states they have statements from other workers. Ms. Roberson's husband also worked for KeyEnergy and was terminated because of a reduction of force. Ms. Roberson states he was in equipment inventory. Ms. Roberson states the Alice yard is under investigation by the Texas Ranger. Ms. Roberson states a retired Texas Ranger about procedures regarding petty cash and equipment. Ms. Roberson states that John Chris was Regional Manager. Ms. DeFord states he was Area Manager. Ms. Roberson explains how she was fired. Ms. DeFord states much of what has been heard today is new information. Ms. DeFord states that co-workers, Noe Garza, Robert Carroll and Glen Pavalik have been interviewed and have denied any claims of sexual harrassment. Ms. Roberson states she has another work making less salary. Ms. DeLong states there was no reprimand for sexual harrassment because it had been denied. Ms. DeLong states another EEOC case is for race discrimination. Court signs scheduling order, exhibit order, general order and mediation order. Ms. Gutierrez states a concern of Texas Ranger regarding Glen Pavalik that Mr. Pavalik was told to sign whistle blower contract. Ms. Gutierrez states there is a concern if Mr. Pavalik is under contract not to talk. Ms. DeLong states she will obtain whatever Mr. Pavalik signed. Court signs order for intervention. Ms. Gutierrez states all documents will be available to Ms. DeFord. Ms. DeFord states she has received some information. Court adjourns. (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

Oct. 21, 2003

Oct. 21, 2003

PACER
11

SCHEDULING ORDER setting Trial date 8:00 8/3/04; Final Pretrial Conference 8:30 8/2/04; Joint Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 3:00 7/23/04 ; Deadline for filing all dispositive motions 5/17/04 ; Joining of parties 11/28/03 ; Amending of pleadings 2/27/04 ; Discovery cutoff 5/28/04 ; before Judge Janis Graham Jack, entered. Parties notified. ( Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

Oct. 21, 2003

Oct. 21, 2003

PACER
12

ORDER re: Exhibits, entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

Oct. 21, 2003

Oct. 21, 2003

PACER
13

GENERAL ORDER, entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

Oct. 21, 2003

Oct. 21, 2003

PACER
14

ORDER FOR REFERRAL TO MEDIATION mediation deadline is 6/11/04, entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

Oct. 21, 2003

Oct. 21, 2003

PACER
15

ORDER granting [4-1] motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff Under FRCP 24 by Tina Roberson, entered; The Court orders that Plaintiff-Intervenor Tina Roberson's Original Complaint be filed. Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

Oct. 21, 2003

Oct. 21, 2003

PACER
16

NOTICE of appearance of counsel for Equal Employment by Judith Georgann Taylor, filed (pramirez) (Entered: 01/14/2004)

Jan. 12, 2004

Jan. 12, 2004

PACER
17

UNOPPOSED MOTION to substitute attorney Judith G. Taylor in place of Linda Gutierrez, wda for Linda Gutierrez to withdraw as attorney by Equal Employment, Motion Docket Date 3/8/04 [17-1] motion, 3/8/04 [17-2] motion, filed. (pramirez) Modified on 02/18/2004 (Entered: 02/18/2004)

Feb. 17, 2004

Feb. 17, 2004

PACER
18

ORDER granting [17-1] motion to substitute attorney Judith G. Taylor in place of Linda Gutierrez Added granting [17-2] motion for Linda Gutierrez to withdraw as attorney, entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (pramirez) (Entered: 02/19/2004)

Feb. 19, 2004

Feb. 19, 2004

PACER
19

UNOPPOSED MOTION for leave to file First Amended Complaint by Tina Robinson, Motion Docket Date 3/16/04 [19-1] motion, filed. (pramirez) Modified on 02/26/2004 (Entered: 02/26/2004)

Feb. 25, 2004

Feb. 25, 2004

PACER
20

UNOPPOSED MOTION for leave of court to amend plaintiff's original complaint by Equal Employment, [20-1] motion, filed. (pramirez) (Entered: 02/26/2004)

Feb. 25, 2004

Feb. 25, 2004

PACER
21

NOTICE of appearance of counsel; attorney Jennifer Randall as co-counsel for Equal Employment, filed (pramirez) Modified on 03/03/2004 (Entered: 02/27/2004)

Feb. 27, 2004

Feb. 27, 2004

PACER
22

ORDER granting [20-1] motion for leave of court to amend plaintiff's original complaint, entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (pramirez) (Entered: 03/01/2004)

Feb. 29, 2004

Feb. 29, 2004

PACER
23

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Equal Employment amending [1-1] complaint, filed. (pramirez) (Entered: 03/01/2004)

Feb. 29, 2004

Feb. 29, 2004

Clearinghouse
24

ORDER granting [19-1] motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint, entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (pramirez) (Entered: 03/01/2004)

Feb. 29, 2004

Feb. 29, 2004

PACER
25

ORDER striking [23-1] amended complaint, entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (pramirez) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

March 18, 2004

March 18, 2004

PACER
26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Equal Employment amending [1-1] complaint, filed. (pramirez) (Entered: 03/26/2004)

March 23, 2004

March 23, 2004

Clearinghouse
27

MOTION for partial summary judgment with brief in support by Equal Employment, Motion Docket Date 6/3/04 [27-1] motion, filed. (pramirez) (Entered: 05/14/2004)

May 14, 2004

May 14, 2004

PACER
28

MOTION for entry of default as to Key Energy Services, and for default judgment against Key Energy Services, and, alternatively, for judgment on pleadings by Tina Roberson, Motion Docket Date 6/6/04 [28-1] motion, 6/6/04 [28-2] motion, 6/6/04 [28-3] motion, filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 05/19/2004)

May 17, 2004

May 17, 2004

PACER
29

ANSWER by Key Energy Services to plaintiff-intervenor's first amended original complaint, filed.; jury demand (lcayce) (Entered: 05/20/2004)

May 19, 2004

May 19, 2004

Clearinghouse
30

AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by Key Energy Services : amends [29-1] complaint answer, filed.; jury demand (lcayce) (Entered: 05/20/2004)

May 20, 2004

May 20, 2004

PACER
31

NOTICE of Hearing: reset joint pretrial order due for 3:00 07/16/04, reset final pretrial conference for 8:30 7/23/04 before Judge Janis Graham Jack, reset jury selection/trial for 8:00 7/26/04 before Judge Janis Graham Jack, filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 06/02/2004)

June 2, 2004

June 2, 2004

PACER

Deadline updated; reset pretrial order due for 3:00 7/16/04 (lcayce)

June 2, 2004

June 2, 2004

PACER
32

JOINT ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Equal Employment, Key Energy Services, Tina Roberson, filed (lcayce) Modified on 06/09/2004 (Entered: 06/09/2004)

June 8, 2004

June 8, 2004

PACER
33

JOINT MOTION to enter consent decree by Equal Employment, Key Energy Services, Tina Roberson, Motion Docket Date 6/28/04 [33-1] motion, filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 06/09/2004)

June 8, 2004

June 8, 2004

PACER
34

CONSENT DECREE : granting [33-1] motion to enter consent decree, entered; Ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows: this Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and the parties, venue is proper, and all administrative prerequisites to the EEOC's filing of this action have been met. The parties stipulate to the Court's jurisdiction. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in the EEOC's complaint and in Tina S. Roberson's complaint-in-intervention. The EEOC and Tina S. Roberson waive further litigation of all issues raised in the above-referenced complaint. The EEOC expressly reserves its right, however, to process and litigate any other charges which may now be pending or may in the future be filed against defendant Key Energy. Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 06/14/2004)

June 13, 2004

June 13, 2004

Clearinghouse
35

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER ENTERING CONSENT DECREE, entered. Parties ntfd. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 06/14/2004)

June 14, 2004

June 14, 2004

Clearinghouse

Case closed (lcayce)

June 21, 2004

June 21, 2004

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Texas

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 4, 2003

Closing Date: June 21, 2004

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Key Energy Services, Inc. (Alice, Texas), Private Entity/Person

Key Energy Services, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 57500

Order Duration: 2003 - 2006

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Provide antidiscrimination training

Retaliation Prohibition

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Reporting

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

Private Party intervened in EEOC suit